Yesterday I mentioned a recent research screening of Alex Garland‘s Annihilation. Given Paramount’s announced intention to open it in March ’18, test-screening it nine months beforehand struck me as curious. A guy who attended the screening shares the following:

“The movie is definitely finished. Maybe they’re still making adjustments to music, but the cut I saw looked and felt like a finished project. As such, it stands to reason that they’re not testing it to see if something should be changed, but rather how and when they should market and release the thing.

“If you ask me, they’re trying to figure out whether or not they should release in fall 2017 for an awards in mind or release it in March 2018 for $$$. If they release it in the fall, it’ll be well reviewed but may be marginalized at the box office against the competition, although it may pick up a few technical nominations at the Oscars (and maybe others).

“In terms of potential awards contenders, Paramount has Darren Aronofsky‘s mother! (could gather some noms unless it outright sucks), Suburbicon (written by the Coens, directed by Clooney…sure to please, right?), and Alexander Payne’s Downsizing. So they might be testing to see if moving it back to 2017 is a wise choice.

“I spoke to one of the studio reps during a bathroom break, and he told me that they’re leaning towards moving it back to a 2017 release.”

“I’ve not had the pleasure of seeing it yet,” Isaac recently told EW, on a day off from playing the lead in Hamlet at New York’s Public Theater. “But I am certain that it will be very weird and very beautiful. You know, Alex Garland makes completely unique things, and he’s such a visionary, and I think it’s going to be a very powerful film. Maybe not for everyone — but that’s what’s amazing about working with artists like the Coens or Alex Garland, is that they follow their own creative impulses, and that’s, at the end of the day, how they make their decisions, following their own artistry and not making it all about things on the outside, and what’s going to please everyone. It’s so special to get to work with people like that.”

Jeff VanderMeer has shared on Facebook this photo, which shows a copy of the book, with dedications of the director and actors (Natalie is in the center):

Even if everything goes to sh*t, I will always have a copy of Annihilation signed by the movie cast and director, an Annihilation movie satchel with Area X dog-tags, and an indestructible watch I bought with the movie money.

Is this a still from the Annihilation movie? Vote now--and check this space for some news tomorrow...(If you vote you don't win anything, but at least I have some confirmation you saw this horrifying image.)

Apparently, the Annihilation trailer includes a card "Based on the Acclaimed Best-selling Novel." Now let's hope the title of the movie hasn't changed...or that the card continues with "by Alex Garland."

In the science fiction film Annihilation, Natalie Portman plays a scientist named Lena, who is part of an expedition tasked with exploring an area which has been taken over by a mysterious force. “[She] finds a very strange, dream-like, surrealist landscape, and goes deeper and deeper into that world, and also into that mindset,” says writer-director Alex Garland (Ex Machina). Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tuva Novotny, Gina Rodriguez, and Tessa Thompson costar as her fellow team members, while Oscar Isaac plays Portman’s husband.

One other character of note featured in the film? An alligator, as is revealed in EW’s exclusive first look photo, above. “It is their first tangible encounter with something strange,” says Garland. “The alligator has physical elements to it that should not belong on an alligator. They’re starting to get their heads around how weird the place is.”

From what I've seen and heard of this story till now, its basic elements look like kind of a mashup of two older movies: Altered States (1980) and The Relic (1997).

The former leans more into the science fiction/fantasy aspect and is quite cerebral, thus could only attract the interest of fewer folks. The latter one plays out more like a "hounted house" movie that gradually turns into full-on action-horror. I've seen the Relic at the theaters back before the internet was a thing, and as far as I can remember the experience was well worth the price of the ticket. Don't understand why it has such a ridiculously low rating on imdb, it's absurd. Would recommend to anyone who can stomach some gruesome imagery (it's more like implied than shown directly on-camera). Well I could figure out what the hell was going on before the characters on screen could (and also spelled it out quietly to the friends I attended the screening with), but that doesn't mean the movie could not deliver the thrills.

But back to Annihilation, my bet is that the "monsta" here will only haunt them inside their head, while the supernatural phenomenon will step-by-step disintegrate humans and other stuff alike akin to what hurricanes, tornados, flooding, etc. and of course diseases would do, only at a much slower pace and in a more spectacular fashion.

It's probably safe to assume it will be better than Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

The only part somewhat unconvincing is seeing Natalie in a badass soldier-like role. Reminds me of the Playstation 1 game called Jedi Power Battles where you could unlock Amidala as a playable character, much to a comical effect. As a game reviewer once jokingly commented: "Amidala will tear through the droid army using a laser pistol and her bare fists." Yea...

So I've been reading online about the supposed whitewashing of Natalie's character the biologist. I've read all 3 books and in the second book Vandermeer mentions that the biologist- who is never named has Asian ancestry and he describes some of her physical attributes.

What I find interesting is that in Annihilation none of the characters are given names or are physically described. You're meant to judge the characters on their actions. Garland has mentioned that he based the movie only on Annihilation. In addition I've read the screenplay and I think the movie will be quiet different from the book.

So my question is do you think there should be a controversy surrounding the casting? Do you think Natalie should not have taken this part?

I don't think this is the same as Scarlett Johansson or Emma Stone playing Asian characters. But at the same time I'm not sure whether I'm less appalled because I'm a Natalie fan.

I think it's a completely absurd controversy. As you say, this is a different case than the others mentioned. Seriously someone is complaining that a character that in the novel is defined by her profession (biology) and not by her name, does not belong to a race that is briefly defined in a second book that has not even been taken into account in the adaptation? it seems absurd to me. The important thing about the characters in the book is their actions, not what ethnic group they are.

Also, as Garland and VanderMeer have recognized, this is a very free adaptation of the novel, where there is a biology (named Lena in the movie, by the way), an anthropologist ... and three other characters (played by Rodriguez, Thompson and Tuva Novotny), which have little to do with those of the novel.

In short, an absurd controversy started by people who don´t really know the gestation of this movie...

Yes, which is hilarious. We had a meeting with the Paramount executives ahead of time. Then my family and I saw the movie and it’s completely without context because there was no trailer or review, it’s a very strange experience watching a movie this way, with no context around you. Plus, when we saw it, it was late lunch time so we come out of theatre with absolutely nobody around, the whole floor at Paramount was deserted. There was nobody waiting to hear what I thought of the movie and it was surreal because it was such a nerve-racking experience.

-Were you anxious going into seeing the rough cut?

Sure. Garland was very kind, he asked for my notes on the rough-cut and I gave them and he said he was going to take most of them. Which, he’s under no obligation to do that so that was very nice.

-So where do we stand with the other chapters of the trilogy because Garland mentioned he wasn’t even aware that was two more novels?

I think he was focused on the one, just making that one a complete story. The novels are such closed vessels that it doesn’t really ruin anything. Despite the changes that he’s made I could see with very few tweaks them being able to make something like Authority though I think that probably what would happen is some of the bureaucracy stuff would be condensed and more of the spy/espionage element would come out more.

If Annihilation is successful, Paramount is fully within their rights to just make Annihilation 2 basically if they wanted to, they don’t have to do more of the Southern Reach. In my head it would be really awesome at some point to have a series or mini-series that’s just basically about the Southern Reach and those 30 years and the weirdness and everything else. But that’s just a dream I have, it’s not under development or anything else.